Animal testing may be one of the most cruel things done in this world. Still, lots of brands do animal tests, simply because they think it is neccesary. The question is, is it neccesary? Is it possible to live without animal tests?
It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. This statement is used by people who fight animal testing. They say that nothing needs to be tested on animals, that it is all possible to be tested in any other way. For this they have many different arguments.
Some people may say that brands like HEMA and Etos are against animal tests and therefore do not use them. However, before companies like HEMA and Etos have the products, the industries and labaratories might have done animal tests already. A company like HEMA or Etos is than not responsible for the animal tests and therefore can say they do not test on animals.
Also people might argue that make up from big brands like Loréal Paris and Versace are tested on animals while it is not necessary. They seem to think make up is an unnecessary luxury. Nevertheless, almost 40% of the Dutch society uses make up, either animal tested or not. That means that of the about 16 million people 6.400.000 people use make up, use unnecessary luxury. It is unfair, even impossible to decide that nobody may use make up anymore. People have accepted make up because it is nice and makes a person feel prettier and so it is impossible to forbid people from using it. Also make up is not only used for fun. People with for instance scars or burn wounds in their face use make up too, as to hide their defects. It would be unfair to take their chance of looking like everybody else away, to be socially accepted, only because we think it is unfair to the animals. Is it not unfair for the people with the scars in their face, with wounds? Unnecessary luxury or not, people will use make up because of esthetic reasons.
Further, people might discuss the fact that some important medicines are tested on animals while it might not be essential. Although this might sound correct, it is not entirely true. Many serious diseases as cancer could not be handled with as we can now if the medications were not tested on animals. Because of the animal testing, people now know what kind of ingredients might be harmful or even deadly to humans. If hospitals would stop doing animal tests, the knowledge about medications would not develop much further as it would take more time to find out whether a component might be helpful or harmful. In consequence more people could die. Hospitals might have other methods to discover whether a medication is dangerous or not, nonetheless it is an undeniable fact that animal testing is the fastest and best way to develop the study of medicines.
Considering the damage done to the animals with the testing, people might say that it is unfair to use animals as if they are less important creatures than humans. However, this can be argued. It is true that by testing harm is done to the animals, but there is thought of a charge. In Europe, only small vertebrate animals, for instance rabbits and rats, may be used for animal tests. Also they may be used once for the same test only and when no animal testing is needed none may be done. With this charge, no large unvertebrate animals are used and the animals used can have a more tolerable life. Another part of the charge is that they may not live in small homes and must be in a place that looks like their natural habit. All this to make their lifes more acceptable. People do the best they can for the animals, they do not think they are better than the animals, they are thankfull because the animals are the reason that we can live and exist as we can now. By the way, the medications that are produced because of animal testing, is not only for humans. Some medications are made for animals, pets for instance. If we would not know how for instance a rabbit reacts on antibiotics, how could we than treat a dog or a cat when they have a serious illness? Should we just give them something and see what happens? Is that not worse than testing one so we can save thousands of others? Take for example the bird flu. It is a contagious disease for both animals and humans. So if there is a medicine against the bird flu tested on animals, it will do good to both groups. One up to five animals are tested on, while more than 5 billion humans and animals are saved. We need animal tests for medications, not only for us humans, but also for animals themselves.
It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. Sadly, this statement is not correct. How much we may all want this, it is not possible to stop doing animal tests. If there were no animal tests, so many people might die or already have died because there would be not enough good medications and treatments. We would not be who we are now. In the labaratories they do the best they can for the animals by making a copy of their natural habit, by holding on to the charge. As long as there are no methods whose results are similar to the results of animal tests, we can not abandon them. Animal tests are neccesary, humans depend on animals, other animals depend on the animal tests. It is impossible to prohibit all animal tests. It is a fact that can not be denied.
Animal testing may be one of the most cruel things done in this world. Still, lots of brands do animal tests, simply because they think it is neccesary. The question is, is it neccesary? Is it possible to live without animal tests?
It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. This statement is used by people who fight animal testing. They say that nothing needs to be tested on animals, that it is all possible to be tested in any other way. For this they have many different arguments.
Some people may say that brands like HEMA and Etos are against animal tests and therefore do not use them. However, before companies like HEMA and Etos have the products, the industries and labaratories might have done animal tests already. A company like HEMA or Etos is than not responsible for the animal tests and therefore can say they do not test on animals.
Also people might argue that make up from big brands like Loréal Paris and Versace are tested on animals while it is not necessary. They seem to think make up is an unnecessary luxury. Nevertheless, almost 40% of the Dutch society uses make up, either animal tested or not. That means that of the about 16 million people 6.400.000 people use make up, use unnecessary luxury. It is unfair, even impossible to decide that nobody may use make up anymore. People have accepted make up because it is nice and makes a person feel prettier and so it is impossible to forbid people from using it. Also make up is not only used for fun. People with for instance scars or burn wounds in their face use make up too, as to hide their defects. It would be unfair to take their chance of looking like everybody else away, to be socially accepted, only because we think it is unfair to the animals. Is it not unfair for the people with the scars in their face, with wounds? Unnecessary luxury or not, people will use make up because of esthetic reasons.
Further, people might discuss the fact that some important medicines are tested on animals while it might not be essential. Although this might sound correct, it is not entirely true. Many serious diseases as cancer could not be handled with as we can now if the medications were not tested on animals. Because of the animal testing, people now know what kind of ingredients might be harmful or even deadly to humans. If hospitals would stop doing animal tests, the knowledge about medications would not develop much further as it would take more time to find out whether a component might be helpful or harmful. In consequence more people could die. Hospitals might have other methods to discover whether a medication is dangerous or not, nonetheless it is an undeniable fact that animal testing is the fastest and best way to develop the study of medicines.
Considering the damage done to the animals with the testing, people might say that it is unfair to use animals as if they are less important creatures than humans. However, this can be argued. It is true that by testing harm is done to the animals, but there is thought of a charge. In Europe, only small vertebrate animals, for instance rabbits and rats, may be used for animal tests. Also they may be used once for the same test only and when no animal testing is needed none may be done. With this charge, no large unvertebrate animals are used and the animals used can have a more tolerable life. Another part of the charge is that they may not live in small homes and must be in a place that looks like their natural habit. All this to make their lifes more acceptable. People do the best they can for the animals, they do not think they are better than the animals, they are thankfull because the animals are the reason that we can live and exist as we can now. By the way, the medications that are produced because of animal testing, is not only for humans. Some medications are made for animals, pets for instance. If we would not know how for instance a rabbit reacts on antibiotics, how could we than treat a dog or a cat when they have a serious illness? Should we just give them something and see what happens? Is that not worse than testing one so we can save thousands of others? Take for example the bird flu. It is a contagious disease for both animals and humans. So if there is a medicine against the bird flu tested on animals, it will do good to both groups. One up to five animals are tested on, while more than 5 billion humans and animals are saved. We need animal tests for medications, not only for us humans, but also for animals themselves.
It is possible to prohibit animal tests all over the world. Sadly, this statement is not correct. How much we may all want this, it is not possible to stop doing animal tests. If there were no animal tests, so many people might die or already have died because there would be not enough good medications and treatments. We would not be who we are now. In the labaratories they do the best they can for the animals by making a copy of their natural habit, by holding on to the charge. As long as there are no methods whose results are similar to the results of animal tests, we can not abandon them. Animal tests are neccesary, humans depend on animals, other animals depend on the animal tests. It is impossible to prohibit all animal tests. It is a fact that can not be denied.